Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad, dated 09-12-2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12.
Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering merits of the appeal when both assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 18-02-2014 and rectification thereof u/s.154 on 26-02-2014 were before the Ld.CIT(A). 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring facts, circumstances and compulsions requiring the appellant to pay farmers against their supply of Sugarcane for season 2010-11 prices of : a. Rs.1750/MT for 87,351.79 Mt of cane purchased during 30-10-2010 to 15-12-2010; and Rs.1650/MT for 1,74,057.97 MT of cane purchased during 16-12-2010 to 31-03-2011.
2 ITA No.280/PUN/2016 Vaidyanath Sant Eknath Sakhar Udyog
Ld.CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.2,61,08,696.00 being @ Rs.150/MT for cane purchased from 16-12-2010 to 31-03-2011 as this was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant, it may be held that entire actual cane price paid by the appellant to farmers for sugarcane purchased be allowed as the appellant’s expenditure in computing its business profits.”
Before us, at the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that
in principle, the assessee proposes to withdraw this appeal and
requested for dismissing the same. On enquiry from the Bench, the
reasons for such request, Ld. AR narrated the facts stating that the
assessee filed the return of income declaring income of Rs.4,03,760/-
in the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act. AO made
addition of Rs. 12,04,52,499/- on account of excess sugarcane price
paid before end of the previous year and also later after 31-03-2011.
For this, AO invoked the provisions of section 37(1) r.w.s. 40A(2) of
the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification application
dated 26-02-2014 asking for deletion of the said addition. In reply, the
AO passed rectification order dated 26-02-2014 restricting the addition
to Rs.2,61,08,695/- in place of Rs.12,04,52,499/-. AO deleted the
addition relatable to the payments made till 31-03-2011. Accordingly,
the assessed income stands rectified and determined at
Rs.2,65,12,460/-. The reasons are given in Para No.6 of the
rectification order which reads as under :
“6. I have considered the submission of the assessee firm. Taking into consideration facts of the case and the circumstances, I am of the view that the price paid upto close of financial year needs to be allowed. Accordingly, the cane price payment made to the members upto 31-03-2011, are required to be allowed and the same paid after 31- 03-2011 needs to be disallowed. From the above, it is evident that the assessee firm has made payment of Rs.82,51,32,082/- upto the closure of the year, i.e. 31-03-2011 and Rs.2,61.08,695/- has been made after 31-03-2011. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,61,08,695/- is to be replaced with the figure of addition made at Rs.12,39,88,555/- (Sic).”
3 ITA No.280/PUN/2016 Vaidyanath Sant Eknath Sakhar Udyog
During the First Appellate proceedings, assessee contended that
the entire addition on this issue has to be deleted including the
amounts paid by the assessee after 31-03-2011. On finding the said
request of assessee being outside the scope of provisions of section
154 of the Act, the CIT(A) did not entertain the request of the assessee.
He accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
With the factual matrix narrated above and aggrieved with the
order of the CIT(A), Ld. AR for the assessee raised the said grounds
which are already extracted above. Before us, deviating from the said
grounds and considering the fact that the grounds in this appeal are
not sustainable in law or fairly acknowledging that the provisions of
section 154 of the Act does not allow the CIT(A) to grant relief in
respect of the payments made by the assessee after 31-03-2011, i.e.
beyond the assessment year under consideration, Ld. AR for the
assessee now considers to drop the appeal in order to bring end to this
litigation. He accordingly proceeded to withdraw the appeal filed by
the assessee.
On hearing both the sides on this issue, we find the prayer of
the assessee is reasonable. Therefore, we need not travel into the
merits of the grounds of the appeal. Accordingly, the grounds raised
by the assessee are dismissed as “withdrawn”.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of January, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद�य पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 22nd January, 2018. सतीश
4 ITA No.280/PUN/2016 Vaidyanath Sant Eknath Sakhar Udyog
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. 3. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad 4. CIT-2, Aurangabad िवभागीय %ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A Bench” 5. Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार
स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary //True Copy// आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune